Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
There's a Panera Bread by my office that has both. Regular cashiers and then a bunch of kiosks. There's one employee pimping the kiosks and helping people use them. Presumably to help speed along their adoption.Isgrimnur wrote:Jackin the Box was testing that in my area years ago. Like the Coke freestyle machines, it creates a backlog as people have to figure out how to work them. But honestly, if I can order food via Internet, I can order it via kiosk.
Every type of job that was ever created is not a license to always have it available.
Nice, Isgrim. The article even touches on the concept of minimum wage as well, so it's apropos for a number of reasons.Isgrimnur wrote:I look forward to the kiosk riots of 2017.
It was going to happen regardless. Look at supermarkets and airline checkin kiosks and drones. Unskilled labor has a very small future in the US.Moliere wrote:Welcome to a higher minimum wage.
Oddly enough, one of the major grocery store chains in the area is in the process of pulling all of the self-checkouts and replacing them with a manned express checkout queue that can accommodate additional cashiers when needed. They always needed one or two live bodies anyway to address problems in the self-checkout lanes, this probably is a faster solution that is more consumer-friendly. And it's a union chain, so the cashiers are doing better than minimum wage (although they make frequent use of mentally handicapped for baggers -- I can't imagine they are being paid particularly well).Pyperkub wrote: It was going to happen regardless. Look at supermarkets and airline checkin kiosks and drones. Unskilled labor has a very small future in the US.
Jewel? I hate that they've removed the self-checkout at our local stores.Jeff V wrote:Oddly enough, one of the major grocery store chains in the area is in the process of pulling all of the self-checkouts and replacing them with a manned express checkout queue that can accommodate additional cashiers when needed. They always needed one or two live bodies anyway to address problems in the self-checkout lanes, this probably is a faster solution that is more consumer-friendly. And it's a union chain, so the cashiers are doing better than minimum wage (although they make frequent use of mentally handicapped for baggers -- I can't imagine they are being paid particularly well).Pyperkub wrote: It was going to happen regardless. Look at supermarkets and airline checkin kiosks and drones. Unskilled labor has a very small future in the US.
It comes down to competitive advantage. Some things that are taken away in the name of cost-reduction get added back when someone finds out that consumers would rather choke people than kiosks when their needs aren't being met. This is especially true when the economy is doing well, profits can support added staff, and consumers will pay for added service. Personally, I prefer having a person do such things for me; self-checkout doesn't really save me any time, and if lines for cashiers aren't too long I'll almost always choose a live person instead.
)
It's even more annoying when the person in front of you at the bank's drive up window starts filling out their forms when they get to the window or item shuttle. Having to remember how to make their letters or do math must be a bitch, and it would interrupt their text messaging while waiting in line.Jeff V wrote: This morning I popped into Walmart at 7:30 am to buy a single item, only 3 of 4 self-checkouts were operational, and each one of them had slack-jawed people staring at them as if trying to decipher the Rosetta Stone. It's even more annoying than the people who take so much time at the ATM machine that I can only assume they are trying to renegotiate their mortgage.
I liked the Jewel self-checkouts because most people didn't like them so they were usually wide open.Jeff V wrote:Yes, Jewel, and I don't mind at all that they did. This morning I popped into Walmart at 7:30 am to buy a single item, only 3 of 4 self-checkouts were operational, and each one of them had slack-jawed people staring at them as if trying to decipher the Rosetta Stone. It's even more annoying than the people who take so much time at the ATM machine that I can only assume they are trying to renegotiate their mortgage.
"With a collective bargaining agreement, a business owner and the employees negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The agreement allows each party to prioritize what is important to them," Hicks said in a statement. "This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing."
It's a last minute reveal. Labor campaigned for the minimum wage and now that it looks like it will go through, they ask for their exemption. Non-union employees and employers are left holding the bag.Moliere wrote:L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers
"With a collective bargaining agreement, a business owner and the employees negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The agreement allows each party to prioritize what is important to them," Hicks said in a statement. "This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing."
Because unions and business owners can come to a mutually agreeable term on wages, even if it's below the minimum wage, but individuals are somehow incapable of doing the same thing.
Of course. It gives them more options when negotiating. Non-union employees come with a set minimum price. That allows for employers to grant all union benefit concessions and still be able to afford union workers over non-union ones. At the very least, it brings non-union workers more in line with higher paid union workers, again making union workers less unattractive to employers.GreenGoo wrote:I'm not following. The union reps want to be allowed to negotiate for below minimum wage salaries?
There's also the matter of benefits (which I was alluding to from my phone). The Union could ,for example, negotiate for better health care to be paid completely by the employer (which could be worth more than $15/hr all by itself) or a Pension, etc. in lieu of a higher base pay rate.GreenGoo wrote:I'm not following. The union reps want to be allowed to negotiate for below minimum wage salaries?
Ah. Ok.LawBeefaroni wrote:Of course.GreenGoo wrote:I'm not following. The union reps want to be allowed to negotiate for below minimum wage salaries?
Menu prices are up 21 percent and you don't have to tip at Ivar's Salmon House on Seattle's Lake Union after the restaurant decided to institute the city's $15-an-hour minimum wage two years ahead of schedule.
It is staff, not diners, who feel the real difference, with wages as much as 60 percent higher than before. One waitress is saving for accounting classes and finding it easier to take weekend vacations, while another server is using the added pay to cover increased rent....
... Ivar's approach, adopted in April, offers lessons in how some businesses might adapt. Ivar's Seafood Restaurants President Bob Donegan decided to raise prices, tell customers that they don't need to tip, and parcel the added revenue among the hourly staff...
..The restaurant's revenue is up 20 percent, said Donegan, who served on the mayoral committee that drafted the minimum wage law.
A few other table-service restaurants have started following suit, and Donegan said he gets inquiries every day from owners wondering how Ivar's policy is working.
Any accountants want to explain how this might impact IRS tipping rules? I thought the IRS assumes a waitress earns tips and therefore taxes based on a percentage of wages or something like that.Pyperkub wrote:The plural of anecdotes is not data, however...
Menu prices are up 21 percent and you don't have to tip at Ivar's Salmon House on Seattle's Lake Union after the restaurant decided to institute the city's $15-an-hour minimum wage two years ahead of schedule.
It is staff, not diners, who feel the real difference, with wages as much as 60 percent higher than before. One waitress is saving for accounting classes and finding it easier to take weekend vacations, while another server is using the added pay to cover increased rent....
... Ivar's approach, adopted in April, offers lessons in how some businesses might adapt. Ivar's Seafood Restaurants President Bob Donegan decided to raise prices, tell customers that they don't need to tip, and parcel the added revenue among the hourly staff...
..The restaurant's revenue is up 20 percent, said Donegan, who served on the mayoral committee that drafted the minimum wage law.
A few other table-service restaurants have started following suit, and Donegan said he gets inquiries every day from owners wondering how Ivar's policy is working.
I'm not an accountant, and the last time I dealt with this, Ronald Reagan was still president. Back then, employees needed to be classified as "tipped employees." Note this doesn't say employees aren't getting tipped at all, only that customers are not required. The restaurant I managed was a little different than most; waitresses also did food prep and clean-up. They received minimum wage or better, not the "tipped employee" minimum. We did not record their tips on a daily basis; the employees were advised to track it themselves, and every year their W2 forms contained "allocated tips", which was determined from a percentage the restaurant gross receipts (because of the type of restaurant and that they were not full tipped employees, the percentage was lower than other restaurants, IIRC about 8%) divided by the hours each qualifying employee worked. If you wanted to stay out of trouble, you at least declared the amount in "allocated tips," although you technically should be declaring the actual amount logged.Moliere wrote: Any accountants want to explain how this might impact IRS tipping rules? I thought the IRS assumes a waitress earns tips and therefore taxes based on a percentage of wages or something like that.
Dan Price, Seattle CEO who set company minimum wage at $70K, struggles to make ends meet:LordMortis wrote:I'm also surprised that this hasn't shown here, being a company based in Seattle.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/busin ... -year.html
Washington Times wrote:The Seattle CEO who raised salaries for all of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 a year, drawing accusations of socialism, now says he has fallen on hard times.
Dan Price, the 31-year-old CEO of credit-card processing firm Gravity Payments, told The New York Times that things have gotten so bad for him financially that he’s been forced to rent out his own house to make ends meet.
“I’m working as hard as I ever worked to make it work,” he said, The Times reported Friday. “I’m renting out my house right now to try to make ends meet myself.”
Just three months ago, Mr. Price made headlines after he announced he would give all 120 of his employees a minimum salary of $70,000, slashing his own $1 million pay check to pay for it. He made the drastic decision to address the wage gap.
Now Mr. Price says the decision has cost him a few customers and two of his “most valued” employees, who quit after newer, less skilled employees ended up with bigger salary hikes than those who had been working longer for the company.
“He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much of a a bump,” said Maisey McMaster, 26, Gravity’s financial manager, the Times reported.
Ms. McMaster, who has now quit the company, said that when she approached Mr. Price with her concerns about the wage changes, he treated her as if she was being selfish.
“That really hurt me,” she said, the Times reported. “I was taking about not only me, but everyone.”
Grant Moran, 29, also quit after the pay changes were enacted.
“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he told The Times. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”
A private company setting wages for their employees is socialism now?Washington Times wrote:The Seattle CEO who raised salaries for all of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 a year, drawing accusations of socialism, now says he has fallen on hard times.
What was the CEO's decision making process? Was it based on the free market of what an employee should be paid according to an individual's experience, expertise, and industry standard for that role or was he running some kind of social experiment based on b.s. economics and media propaganda?msteelers wrote:A private company setting wages for their employees is socialism now?Washington Times wrote:The Seattle CEO who raised salaries for all of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 a year, drawing accusations of socialism, now says he has fallen on hard times.
He read an article that said people were happier when they made about 70k because of the extra money they had to live with. The study indicated that people above that level (or there abouts) weren't any happier than the people at that level...thus the new salary.Moliere wrote:What was the CEO's decision making process? Was it based on the free market of what an employee should be paid according to an individual's experience, expertise, and industry standard for that role or was he running some kind of social experiment based on b.s. economics and media propaganda?msteelers wrote:A private company setting wages for their employees is socialism now?Washington Times wrote:The Seattle CEO who raised salaries for all of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 a year, drawing accusations of socialism, now says he has fallen on hard times.
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
I doubt anyone was seriously suggesting it was socialism in the literal sense. More likely that it was simply analogous to the pie-in-the-sky fuckwittery of socialism.msteelers wrote:A private company setting wages for their employees is socialism now?Washington Times wrote:The Seattle CEO who raised salaries for all of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 a year, drawing accusations of socialism, now says he has fallen on hard times.
In the comments on that story, there are definitely people who think this is literally socialism.Anonymous Bosch wrote:I doubt anyone was seriously suggesting it was socialism in the literal sense. More likely that it was simply analogous to the pie-in-the-sky fuckwittery of socialism.msteelers wrote:A private company setting wages for their employees is socialism now?Washington Times wrote:The Seattle CEO who raised salaries for all of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 a year, drawing accusations of socialism, now says he has fallen on hard times.
Broadly speaking, Internet comment sections strike me as the armpit fartnoises of rational discourse. So if you came across some witless remarks posted there, my response would be "No shit, Sherlock."AWS260 wrote:In the comments on that story, there are definitely people who think this is literally socialism.Anonymous Bosch wrote:I doubt anyone was seriously suggesting it was socialism in the literal sense. More likely that it was simply analogous to the pie-in-the-sky fuckwittery of socialism.msteelers wrote:A private company setting wages for their employees is socialism now?Washington Times wrote:The Seattle CEO who raised salaries for all of his employees to a minimum of $70,000 a year, drawing accusations of socialism, now says he has fallen on hard times.
Heh, I doubt that study was done with Seattle's cost of living factored in.stessier wrote: He read an article that said people were happier when they made about 70k because of the extra money they had to live with. The study indicated that people above that level (or there abouts) weren't any happier than the people at that level...thus the new salary.
Here's the study. It doesn't look like regional differences were taken as a factor - just income reported. They sampled the whole US, though, so it's likely high cost regions were included.LawBeefaroni wrote:Heh, I doubt that study was done with Seattle's cost of living factored in.stessier wrote: He read an article that said people were happier when they made about 70k because of the extra money they had to live with. The study indicated that people above that level (or there abouts) weren't any happier than the people at that level...thus the new salary.
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
He's lost some top talent but I'm not sure his business failed. He paid for the higher salaries out of his own $1M paycheck so if he cut his own pay by a lot, he'd be struggling with his personal finances (AKA "fallen on hard times" as the article says). That's why he renting out his house, etc.GreenGoo wrote:I'd like a look at his books. Why did his business fail? I'm not willing to infer what they are implying without proof.
It hasn't failed yet, just tough. If you read the article, he says lost 3 big clients because of the change - they thought he was going to have to raise prices. He also lost some experienced people because they didn't like everyone being raised to that level. He has gotten some new business from companies that like his salary ideas, but he says it will be about a year before they start showing a profit from them. Finally, his 30% partner (his brother) is suing him for using company funds for the salary hike and the company doesn't have the cash to fight the suit on top of everything else.GreenGoo wrote:I'd like a look at his books. Why did his business fail? I'm not willing to infer what they are implying without proof.
| Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
Somebody needs to buy a decimal point.Alefroth wrote:http://www.seattletimes.com/business/lo ... /#comments
